it's only "sodomy" [as in bad] if the case is man with man. men with women, anal penetration is just a position of sex. people still do it today. it would be one way for a man to insure his wife knew who was the head of the house.
'to sodomize' someone usually implies the use of force, and is mostly used by people who think that homosexuals are sinners. people could be executed for sodomy at least all the way up to the 16th century. but a man having anal sex with a woman isn't sodomy. only man on man is sodomy.
Originally posted by siriuswriterYou know that doggy style is not the same as anal though, right?
it's only "sodomy" [as in bad] if the case is man with man. men with women, anal penetration is just a position of sex. people still do it today. it would be one way for a man to insure his wife knew who was the head of the house.'to sodomize' someone usually implies the use of force, and is mostly used by people who think that homosexuals are sinners. people could be executed for sodomy at least all the way up to the 16th century. but a man having anal sex with a woman isn't sodomy. only man on man is sodomy.
Originally posted by siriuswriter
it's only "sodomy" [as in bad] if the case is man with man. men with women, anal penetration is just a position of sex. people still do it today. it would be one way for a man to insure his wife knew who was the head of the house.'to sodomize' someone usually implies the use of force, and is mostly used by people who think that homosexuals are sinners. people could be executed for sodomy at least all the way up to the 16th century. but a man having anal sex with a woman isn't sodomy. only man on man is sodomy.
That's not the confusion, as people have been practicing anal-sex [probably] since the dawn of Man. The confusion is, that men would anally penetrate their women as a form of domination and that this was common/preferred method back in the days of old. I don't think this is factually correct.
If there's "force" involved in anal-sex (or any sex for that matter), then it's probably just rape, as I don't believe sodomy and forceful entry are congruous. Men having anal with women is still sodomy, by definition. Though it isn't looked down upon [usually] as two men engaging in it, due to the homosexual stigma.
Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~
How are Christians forcing their religion on anyone? You're making it sound like Christianity is being injected into your body on a weekly basis. Do people force other people to go to Church or read the Bible in the US? I wasn't aware of this practice...
By voting on things such as prop 8, laws that are in place such as anti-sodomy laws, anti-gay laws, etc.
And, yes, social pressure can be really hard to deal with. Many a homosexual have committed suicide, due to the social pressures. To me, that's ridiculously horrible.
Originally posted by dadudemon
By voting on things such as prop 8, laws that are in place such as anti-sodomy laws, anti-gay laws, etc.And, yes, social pressure can be really hard to deal with. Many a homosexual have committed suicide, due to the social pressures. To me, that's ridiculously horrible.
I suppose in some places there are some anti-gay laws such as prop 8 as you mention, but the blame for those isn't to be thrown on the Christian faith, but on the people who passed them.
As for homosexuals committing suicide due to social pressure, meh...cry me a river. If you're unstable enough to commit suicide due to social pressure, then you would've been unstable enough to do some other type of crazy shit even if there were no social pressure in the first place.
Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~
As for homosexuals committing suicide due to social pressure, meh...cry me a river. If you're unstable enough to commit suicide due to social pressure, then you would've been unstable enough to do some other type of crazy shit even if there were no social pressure in the first place.
expand on this one a little more for me, svp?
Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~
I suppose in some places there are some anti-gay laws such as prop 8 as you mention, but the blame for those isn't to be thrown on the Christian faith, but on the people who passed them.
No, it's definitely the Christians. This is fact. On all examples I gave, it was the Christians.
Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~
As for homosexuals committing suicide due to social pressure, meh...cry me a river. If you're unstable enough to commit suicide due to social pressure, then you would've been unstable enough to do some other type of crazy shit even if there were no social pressure in the first place.
Don't you think that's close minded and harsh of you to say?
Though, I agree to an extent. If one commits suicide, they are mostly to blame for it. I don't care how tough things get. You don't commit suicide. There are plenty of exceptions, though. I am not a psychological expert by any streatch, but there are exceptions to the rule and exceptions based on situation. Example: Being tortured for government secrets. Commit suicide to protect your nation during times of war. Absurd, but that's an example.
Originally posted by inimalist
expand on this one a little more for me, svp?
What would you like me to expand on? 😬
There's social pressure on: poor people, people of different ethnicities, people with different sexual preferences, people with physical or mental handicaps, etc. etc. etc. It's ALWAYS been like that, since the beginning of time. Whoever is the majority will discriminate against the minority. Byzantines cut the eyes, tongues, and ears off of any heathens they got their hands on at one point. Vikings did the same to monks, then came 1000 AD, Christianity grew popular, now Christians discriminate against other religions, but atheists and agnostics are more and more popular nowadays, so in about 100 years best as I can tell, atheists will be the majority and they will be discriminating against Christians then.
There's always been and there always will be a majority and a minority, with the majority discriminating against the minority. If you decide to kill yourself cause you can't take it anymore, good! Go right a-fckin-head, cause life is not a walk through the park. If you want to put a bullet in your head cause you're gay but at the last moment decide not to, you might pick that gun up again 3 years later when you're being discriminated against for not being Christian, or for being fat, or skinny, or poor, or unemployed. Hell, maybe you'll get run over but survive, then be in a wheelchair and decide to pop one in your brains THEN, cause you're being discriminated against for being handicapped.
If you decide to take the easy way out, go for it. At least do it somewhere away from people so there are no bystanders hurt.
It is in human nature to discriminate against this or the other thing. No one is going to change that. The point being that you can't blame human nature for someone committing suicide as a result of discrimination, but you CAN blame the person committing suicide for not toughing it out. At least that's how I see it. If everyone were that weak and decided to kill themselves due to discrimination, there would be one single religion, one single skin color, one single language, one single type of music, etc.
Might sound cruel, but hey, when you grow up in a dictatorial environment you learn to tough it the fck out, get back up and move the fck on.
Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~
What would you like me to expand on? 😬There's social pressure on: poor people, people of different ethnicities, people with different sexual preferences, people with physical or mental handicaps, etc. etc. etc. It's ALWAYS been like that, since the beginning of time. Whoever is the majority will discriminate against the minority. Byzantines cut the eyes, tongues, and ears off of any heathens they got their hands on at one point. Vikings did the same to monks, then came 1000 AD, Christianity grew popular, now Christians discriminate against other religions, but atheists and agnostics are more and more popular nowadays, so in about 100 years best as I can tell, atheists will be the majority and they will be discriminating against Christians then.
There's always been and there always will be a majority and a minority, with the majority discriminating against the minority. If you decide to kill yourself cause you can't take it anymore, good! Go right a-fckin-head, cause life is not a walk through the park. If you want to put a bullet in your head cause you're gay but at the last moment decide not to, you might pick that gun up again 3 years later when you're being discriminated against for not being Christian, or for being fat, or skinny, or poor, or unemployed. Hell, maybe you'll get run over but survive, then be in a wheelchair and decide to pop one in your brains THEN, cause you're being discriminated against for being handicapped.
If you decide to take the easy way out, go for it. At least do it somewhere away from people so there are no bystanders hurt.
It is in human nature to discriminate against this or the other thing. No one is going to change that. The point being that you can't blame human nature for someone committing suicide as a result of discrimination, but you CAN blame the person committing suicide for not toughing it out. At least that's how I see it. If everyone were that weak and decided to kill themselves due to discrimination, there would be one single religion, one single skin color, one single language, one single type of music, etc.
Might sound cruel, but hey, when you grow up in a dictatorial environment you learn to tough it the fck out, get back up and move the fck on.
The social pressure on homosexuals was, at time, much much higher than on any of the other groups you mentioned. And just because in such a specific situation they might do something extreme doesn't mean they ever would have under normal circumstances.
One thing that strikes me as odd though, why should they do it away from "innocent" bystanders? Going by your logic that's really just something those bystanders will have to deal with. If the many don't have to control their own ignorance to socially pressure gays, why should people that want to commit suicide do it away from others where it doesn't bother those?
Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~
What would you like me to expand on? 😬There's social pressure on: poor people, people of different ethnicities, people with different sexual preferences, people with physical or mental handicaps, etc. etc. etc. It's ALWAYS been like that, since the beginning of time. Whoever is the majority will discriminate against the minority. Byzantines cut the eyes, tongues, and ears off of any heathens they got their hands on at one point. Vikings did the same to monks, then came 1000 AD, Christianity grew popular, now Christians discriminate against other religions, but atheists and agnostics are more and more popular nowadays, so in about 100 years best as I can tell, atheists will be the majority and they will be discriminating against Christians then.
1. You're implying that humans are incapable of progressing, socially, to be more civil. This is not the case.
2. I have found atheists to be quite accommodation to other religions. Waaaaaaaaay more so than one religion on another. (i.e Muslims to Christians or Christians to Muslims.) IMO, a majority agnostic or atheist world would improve social conditions for everyone. I want you to find one atheist that seriously wants to remove religion from everyone. I'm sure you'll be hard pressed to find very many, as they are in the extreme extreme minority and other atheists look down upon that closed mindedness. KMC! Can I get an atheist KMC witness here!
Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~
There's always been and there always will be a majority and a minority, with the majority discriminating against the minority. If you decide to kill yourself cause you can't take it anymore, good! Go right a-fckin-head, cause life is not a walk through the park. If you want to put a bullet in your head cause you're gay but at the last moment decide not to, you might pick that gun up again 3 years later when you're being discriminated against for not being Christian, or for being fat, or skinny, or poor, or unemployed. Hell, maybe you'll get run over but survive, then be in a wheelchair and decide to pop one in your brains THEN, cause you're being discriminated against for being handicapped.
Damn. You're more cynical than I am. You sound like an old man, lol.
Originally posted by Bardock42
The social pressure on homosexuals was, at time, much much higher than on any of the other groups you mentioned. And just because in such a specific situation they might do something extreme doesn't mean they ever would have under normal circumstances.
If they decide to do something extreme under extreme circumstances, that is what I call a personality trait. So if that kind of person lived in a world where there was absolutely NO prejudice against homosexuality whatsoever, having that particular trait (I call it the "oh noes life's too hard, I'm gonna take the easy way out" trait), they would probably end up doing "something extreme" under OTHER circumstances. I regard people like this to be quitters of extreme persuasion.
In shorter words, in my opinion, if someone is willing to kill themselves over being discriminated for being gay, they're just as likely to kill themselves over being discriminated for being poor, or black, or hispanic, etc. etc. etc.
Originally posted by Bardock42
One thing that strikes me as odd though, why should they do it away from "innocent" bystanders? Going by your logic that's really just something those bystanders will have to deal with. If the many don't have to control their own ignorance to socially pressure gays, why should people that want to commit suicide do it away from others where it doesn't bother those?
I didn't say "innocent" in my post did I? I just said bystanders. And perhaps I worded it wrong, or didn't give enough information. What I meant wasn't that the bystanders shouldn't see so they're not shocked, but rather that harm might come if the "going out" scheme involves shooting oneself, throwing oneself in front of cars, etc. Why would I have to be involved in a car pile up because some dude decided he can't take being called queer anymore and killed himself but led to a gigantic fckin pile-up? You now get what I meant?
Originally posted by dadudemon
1. You're implying that humans are incapable of progressing, socially, to be more civil. This is not the case.
Fundamentally? No. Definitely not. The rule of thumb may no longer exist as written law, intelligent women are no longer burned at the stake, and african americans are no longer working the fields. But that's just legislative progress. An evolution of psychology is something completely different.
Originally posted by dadudemon
2. I have found atheists to be quite accommodation to other religions. Waaaaaaaaay more so than one religion on another. (i.e Muslims to Christians or Christians to Muslims.) IMO, a majority agnostic or atheist world would improve social conditions for everyone. I want you to find one atheist that seriously wants to remove religion from everyone. I'm sure you'll be hard pressed to find very many, as they are in the extreme extreme minority and other atheists look down upon that closed mindedness. KMC! Can I get an atheist KMC witness here!
I can't speak for the US since I was there briefly only and didn't meet too many people, but here at least, most atheists I've ever met are extremely arrogant, prefer to say "Well..it's fckin stupid to believe in an invisible little man (thinking they're George Carlin) " and DO discriminate against religions, in the form of "meh, whatever, but she/he is fckin stupid for actually believing in those fairy tales". So no...from personal experience I don't find them to be more understanding. Less extreme, yes. More understanding, no.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Damn. You're more cynical than I am. You sound like an old man, lol.
I'm really not always so cynical, but having grown up in a country where the best areas of downtown look like the projects from the states, and where you would be thrown in jail for making a joke about the regime, videos were not allowed, and every Saturday the kids in the kindergarten were forced to watch communist speeches, hearing about some dude who grew up in a place a hundred times better than this fckin hellhole killing himself cause "they're meaaaaan" just really fckin irks the shit out of me.
I want you to find one atheist that seriously wants to remove religion from everyone.
I can't think that there would be very many. I mean, when I look at the damage religion has done (and my own bias) I think the world would be better off without it. However, because people are allowed to make their own decisions (and mistakes) it is extremely unlikely for atheists to go about discriminating against any particular group. Even if atheists do become a majority (which seems unlikely to me) "they" wouldn't do anything- Dawkins noted that directing atheists is like herding cats.
Edit: It seems like you're confusing being understanding with agreeing.
Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~
Fundamentally? No. Definitely not. The rule of thumb may no longer exist as written law, intelligent women are no longer burned at the stake, and african americans are no longer working the fields. But that's just legislative progress. An evolution of psychology is something completely different.
The change in law first comes as a social change/perception in the people. This is fundemental how democratic type systems operate.
There has been massive changes in social conditions, both from the people and from the law.
It doesn't first come as law, and then the people change their mind because the law gets them used to it (with a few exceptions such as the 13th amendment and the south)
The people change and vote on it or they vote a representative in that agrees with their philosophy.
Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~
I can't speak for the US since I was there briefly only and didn't meet too many people, but here at least, most atheists I've ever met are extremely arrogant, prefer to say "Well..it's fckin stupid to believe in an invisible little man (thinking they're George Carlin) " and DO discriminate against religions, in the form of "meh, whatever, but she/he is fckin stupid for actually believing in those fairy tales". So no...from personal experience I don't find them to be more understanding. Less extreme, yes. More understanding, no.
I don't mean to insult, but you're confusing bias for discrimination.
Are they actively, or even partially trying to get religion to be illegal? The answer is obviously "no." That was my point.
And then, you have the Christians who ARE actively trying to force their religion on others via law and social pressure. That was my point. It is a stark contrast to your claim that in 100 years, atheists will discriminate against other religions because they are in the majority. This goes against many of the same things I hear from atheists. Sure, they could change a lot since then, but I highly doubt they will ever force everyone to stop religion, entirely.
And, yes, what Red Nemsis said. It seems you're confusing understanding with agreeing, and also incorrectly using the word discrimnate.
Originally posted by ~The Wickerman~
I'm really not always so cynical, but having grown up in a country where the best areas of downtown look like the projects from the states, and where you would be thrown in jail for making a joke about the regime, videos were not allowed, and every Saturday the kids in the kindergarten were forced to watch communist speeches, hearing about some dude who grew up in a place a hundred times better than this fckin hellhole killing himself cause "they're meaaaaan" just really fckin irks the shit out of me.
Different set of social circumstances.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Sam Harris.
I haven't read of him trying to actually end religion, more like expressing ideas on how religion is a dammer of progess. I share the same.
Is he actually out there telling people that he wants to make religion illegal? Is he, himself, writing his congressmen, etc?
This is what I was getting at earlier. There are christians doing that against people they don't like. i.e. gays. Is he doing the same? Or is he expressing his ideas about religion?